From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Remy Horton Subject: Re: decision process to accept new libraries Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:33:11 +0000 Message-ID: <4322b761-83d7-2e23-5fdc-c5b493a95ca2@intel.com> References: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B035B99794@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <3736276.ftqFo2Af7c@xps13> <20170221134658.GA208676@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <1746585.AAhpvkiIzm@xps13> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D89126527526E0@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" , Thomas Monjalon , "Richardson, Bruce" Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8CE02B88 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:33:13 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D89126527526E0@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 22/02/2017 19:06, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote: [..] > This essentially leads to the "other" repos becoming second class > citizens that can be broken at any time without prior notice or the > right to influence the change. The amount of maintenance work becomes > very difficult to quantify (e.g. we all know what a ripple effect a > chance in the mbuf structure can cause to any of those "other" DPDK > libraries). +1 - In my experience anything other than a single repository ends up in tears sooner or later. At a previous company I worked on a project where each "module" went into its own repo, all fourty-five of which were strung together using Gerrit/Jenkins, the result being I spent more time on rebases and build breakages than writing business logic. Patchsets that cross repo boundaries are a recipe for pain, and if DPDK goes down the same route, it will likley cripple development.